dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics (Go Player)

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-Z-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 21, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Go player and teacher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement asserting that he fulfills at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
Matter of Y-Z-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets fmth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and
scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not
readily apply to the individual's occupation.
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS
As a Go player and teacher at thel I Go Center, the Petitioner competes in tournaments, organizes 
Go events, and instructs students. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 
received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not meet any of the initial evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that 
he satisfies the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iv), discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that he 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner presented competition results indicating that he placed 
second in the "Main Championship" at the 1 7thl I 
Tournament (2012). The record includes the webpage for the I I which discusses the 
format of the tournament and competition rules. This webpage states: "There are two categories: one 
is the Main Championship and the other is the Ranked Championship. You can participate in the Main 
Tournament regardless of your Go strength." While the Petitioner provided information about this 
2 
Matter of Y-Z-
tournament, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that his second place among unranked
amateur players is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 1 
In addition, the Petitioner provided results for the 2013
Tournament and the 21 stl I Tournament (2017) show-in_g_t_h-at_h_e_p_l-ac_e_d_i _n-th_e_t_o_p_e_ig_h_t -in_t_h-es-e
two competitions. He also submitted documentation indicating that he placed 12th (2011) and 8th
(2012) at the 9th and 10th ..___ ______ __.Championships, respectively. Furthermore, the
record indicates that the Petitioner placed 8th in the "Junior Male Section" at the I I I I Tournament (1995) and 4th at the..___ _________ ___, Tournament
(2013). While several of the aforementioned tournaments were international competitions that
included participants from multiple nations, the record does not include sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the Petitioner's standings constitute "nationally or internationally recognized prizes
or awards" for excellence in the field.
The record also contains a December 1999 "Certificate for First-Class Athlete" "approved by" the
Sports Administration o� I China stating: "According to the 'Standard for Athlete
Level Ranks,' [the Petitioner] is found to be qualified for, and here be [sic] awarded the title of First­
Class Athlete."2 The evidence, however, is not sufficient to show that this certificate is a nationally
recognized award for excellence in the Petitioner's field.
Furthermore, in response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a D 2018
article in American Go E-Journal stating that he won the I I Go Center's "Anniversary
Tournament" (2016) and "Spring Tournament" (2018). The Spring Tournament, however, post-dated
the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l).
Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his awards from these two tournaments were
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. For example, the
Petitioner has not shown that American Go £-Journal's coverage 3 and winning local tournaments
hosted by his employer are indicative of national or international recognition. He has not established
therefore that he meets this regulatory criterion.
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
The Petitioner contends that his American Go Association (AGA: dan rank and rating meet this
criterion. The record includes a July 2018 letter froml , I of the AGA, indicating
that the Petitioner "is an amateur 7 dan player, based on his 7.8 AGA rating." I !further
explained that the AGA has amateur rankings "starting at 1 dan and going up to 7 dan" and that
professional rankings range from lp to 9p. For example, regarding Go professional rankings, he
1 The issue here is not the national or international scope of the Petitioner's competitions, but rather whether his specific 
awards are "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes or awards for excellence in the fie;;;..;;ld;.;... ---� 
2 The Petitioner explained that he received this title because he "won the Go Championship ot1 !" 
3 We will further address this evidence under the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
3 
Matter of Y-Z-
ind ica ted tha t AGA professiona l I I' defeated "in terna tiona l ti tle ho lder! l las t 
year." 4 Th e recor d does no t show tha t the Peti tion er's ama teur dan rank and ra ting constitu te a specific 
typ e of "memb ership" in the AGA or ris e to the l evel of outstand ing achi ev emen ts. 5 Nor has the
Petition er provid ed suffici en t evid enc e to d emons tra te tha t AGA m emb ers' achi ev em en ts ar e judged 
by recogniz ed na tiona l or in terna tional exp erts. 
As further evid enc e under this cri terion, the Peti tion er ass erts that he "r epresen ted the U.S. team in the
I ! He provid ed an Apr il 2017 l etter from I I organ izer 
of the I I stating: "In 2009, wh en s el ecting players for the 2nd I I [the Peti tion er] was 
recomm ended to m e b� I who assis ted m e in coordina ting the U.S. team .. .. Becaus e
of [the Petition er's] acc t
im as 
1
n e of the b est Go players in the U.S. , I d ecid ed to inv ite him to join
the U.S. T eam. " Whi le further indica ted tha t the Peti tioner was again inv ited to join the U.S. 
team at the 3rd I lin 2011 and was "an unreplac eab le m emb er of the U.S. team," he did no t provid e 
i ts m emb ership requirem en ts or discuss its player selec tion proc ess. Wi thout supporting docum en tary 
evid enc e show ing that t he I IU.S. team required outstanding achi ev em en ts of i ts memb ers, as 
judged by recogniz ed na tiona l or in terna tiona l e xp erts, the informa tion froml I is no t suffici en t 
to m eet this criterion. 
In addi tion, the Peti tion er main tains tha t his Decemb er 1999 "Certifica te for Firs t-Class A thlete" 
satisfi es this cri terion. His "Firs t-Class Ath lete " designa tion, howev er, is an award or titl e, and no t
docum en tation of his m emb ership in an assoc iation in the fi eld. Furthermore, the Petition er has no t 
provid ed suffici ent evid enc e of the requir em en ts for earning this designa tion. Fina lly, he has no t 
prov ided d ocum en tation to demons tra te tha t "Firs t-Class A thlete" cand idates' ach iev em en ts ar e
judged by recogn ized na tional or in terna tiona l e xp erts. For the abov e reasons, the Peti tioner has no t 
estab lished tha t he m eets this cri terion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( iii). 
As docum en tation for this cr iterion the Petitioner subm itted two 1999 articl es in Baodin 
Evening News en;:t::::it:::le:::.:d:::....!::================:::;--,-------------' 
I _ I' and __________________ Th e firs t artic le is abou t t he 
Petition er wh ile the l atter article on ly m en tions him in pass ing. 6 Th is r egulatory cr iterion requir es 
"pub lish ed ma teria l abou t the alien." Art icl es that are no t abou t him do no t m eet this regulatory cr iterion. 
See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. S ept. 2008) (upho lding a find ing 
tha t articl es abou t a show ar e not abou t t he actor). In a ddition, the Petition er presen ted an artic le
discussing Baoding Evening News' m edia honors avai lab le at www.h e.xinhuane t.com, but t his 
informa tion is no t suffici en t to show tha t Baoding Evening News is a form of major m edia. Th e record 
41 Is discussion of "professional" ranking categories identified multiple levels above the Petitioner's "7 dan"
amateur ranking that reflect higher levels of achievement. 
5 Accruing points in amateur Go tournaments or passing exams to be awarded a dan rank do not necessarily constitute
outstanding achievements. 
6 The latter article is about thel I tournament and includes just two sentences mentioning the Petitioner. 
4 
Matter of Y-Z-
also contains information from the aforementioned newspaper's webpage stating that it "has an 
average daily distribution of 100,000." The Petitioner, however, has not presented comparative 
statistics or other evidence demonstrating that the readership for Baoding Evening News elevates it to 
major media relative to other publications. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided the Wikipedia entry for I I that includes the schedule and 
results for its first, second, and third tournaments. This Wikipedia entry lists the Petitioner among 
numerous other tournament participants, but the material is not about him. Furthermore, we note that 
Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot 
guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (November 29, 2018), 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 
(8th Cir. 2008). Nor was the author of the material identified as required by this criterion. 
The record also includes al �012 article available at www.sina.com.cn, entitled 'I._ ___ __,
"7 This article ,...._ _______________________________ __. 
describing and promoting the upcoming convention briefly identifies the Petitioner as one of the 
personnel in charge, but the material is not about him. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that 
"published material" as referenced in the regulation includes this type of promotional material. 8 In 
addition, while the Petitioner presented a "List of most popular websites" from Wikipedia ranking 
www.sina.com.cn 19th among "Alexa top 100 global websites," this information alone is insufficient 
to show that the aforementioned website is a form of major media. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided competition results available at,__ _____ ___,listing his and 
the other participating players' standings at various Go tournaments. 9 These tournament results do 
not constitute published material about the Petitioner, nor is the author of the material identified as 
required for this criterion. In addition, while the Petitioner presented information about The Nikkei ( a 
Japanese economics newspaper) from Wikipedia, the record does not show that the submitted tournament 
results were published in that particular newspaper. 
The Petitioner presented additional articles appearing in American Go E-Journal, but the majority of 
these articles did not identify an author. 1° Further, the articles were about Go events or tournaments 
and not the Petitioner. Finally, the record does not show that American Go E-Journal qualifies as a 
form of major media. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies this 
regulatory criterion. 
7 The author of this material is identified as the "Organization Committee of the North American Go Association." 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions;
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that marketing materials created for the 
purpose of selling a petitioner's products or promoting his or her services are not generally considered to be published 
material about the petitioner). 
9 These webpages include a copyright for "Nikkei Inc.," owner of The Nikkei newspaper. 
10 As discussed, the02018 article in American Go E-Journal post-dated the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
5 
Matter of Y-Z-
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The July 2018 letter froml I stated that the Petitioner served as "tournament director of a two-
weekend event in 2013, the ....__ ___________ ____.' and assessed Chinese players 
individually to determine their strength and level of play for proper assignment in the tournament. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter o.f Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance and recognition of his work are indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that they are consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, 
it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o.f Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.f Y-Z-, ID# 3113738 (AAO May 21, 2019) 
6